CanucksCorner.com Forums

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 7:55 pm How does anyone actually believe that a woman enjoys that type of treatment?

It's nice to get a female perspective. At first, I thought the doods were guilty for sure and a bit surprised how it all played out. At the end of the day, I trust the judge's verdict as it was from a lady as well.

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:24 pm It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

Lancer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 3:45 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:24 pm It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

I disagree with respect to the privacy and standards of conduct applying equally between hockey stars and the remainder of the plebes. When one gets to a point where they hold positions of prominence in society - whether it’s a teacher, a politician, a magistrate or an entertainer - there is a certain exemplary expectation in a social sense. If you represent an institution - whether it’s a hockey club, national team or a league, you represent the ethics and values of that institution through your conduct and utterances.

They make the bucks; they get the fandom; they get the celebrity; it’s part of the social contract.

None of them, other than Formenton, had played in the NHL at the time of this incident.

Now these guys have been acquitted by the civil and criminal courts.....but this will haunt their professional careers, as well as their social lives, forever.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:25 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:24 pm It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 11:37 am

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:25 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:24 pm It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

Our system has always been one of a public trial. Secret trials lead to a lot more abuse. You are right. When someone stands accused it can ruin their life. But trials done in the dark scare me.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 3:30 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 11:37 am

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:25 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:24 pm It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

Our system has always been one of a public trial. Secret trials lead to a lot more abuse. You are right. When someone stands accused it can ruin their life. But trials done in the dark scare me.

I hear you, and don't disagree with that perspective either. The advent of social media is a hurdle that a fair and just society has to strive to overcome.

In more ways than one!

Roslovic “apparent” contract demands - 3 year - $4 million per year. That’s a steep price on a centre version of Mason Raymond.

https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2025/08/t ... ovics.html

Rossi’s camp apparently wanting a long term deal between $6-$7 million per while the Wild won’t go higher than $5 million. This ain’t getting done anytime soon. Gifting a long term $7 million per to Smurf Rossi is risky shit

https://bolavip.com/en/nhl/nhl-rumors-m ... et-in-play

Rossi holding his team hostage is big flashing red warning light but his size isn't as relative as Bill Guerin thinks (much like QH43 has the wheels and smarts to dangle around the larger pylon types) The kid is a dynamic player who would be a pretty solid add but for me not at the cost of Willander.

Roslovic is an average at best defensively suspect center who we shouldn't be putting out more than a one year offer for. Probably why he still has no contract

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 9:03 am Rossi holding his team hostage is big flashing red warning light but his size isn't as relative as Bill Guerin thinks (much like QH43 has the wheels and smarts to dangle around the larger pylon types) The kid is a dynamic player who would be a pretty solid add but for me not at the cost of Willander.

Roslovic is an average at best defensively suspect center who we shouldn't be putting out more than a one year offer for. Probably why he still has no contract

Scooter boy/fall down Petey and midget Rossi as your top two centres is a recipe for disaster, lol.

Roslovic isn't a centre but he can play there in a pinch.

I still think Cole Slllinger may end up here. I also want to see more of Raty and I hope they give him a punchers chance to succeed.

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 9:03 am Rossi holding his team hostage is big flashing red warning light but his size isn't as relative as Bill Guerin thinks (much like QH43 has the wheels and smarts to dangle around the larger pylon types) The kid is a dynamic player who would be a pretty solid add but for me not at the cost of Willander.

I'm warming to the idea of Rossi as a fit for 2C, but Willander plus, and then $6M per on a multi-year contract is just too much.
Petey and Demko could still be underperforming, I'd wait until December to make any kind of major deal like this.
Who knows, maybe Ratu and Chytil are on fire by then.

Raty is still only 22 and has shown slow but steady year over year improvement so I'm with ya Blobbo on giving the kid his shot. He's a solid kid who seems to be committed to improving which is refreshing

Chytil eats alot of shit around here but he is also only 25. I liked what I saw when he arrived as he was consistently driving the center of the ice pushing back defenses that typically have success against Van. It would be nice to see what a full season looks like from him before selling the farm

Pettersson is where the franchise succeeds or fails. If he returns to form as a top 10 center with Selke candidate defensive play while kicking in 30/50 on the stat sheet, we could once again surprise and challenge for a pacific division title. (If that seems too far fetched please see how we started 23 months ago....and no JTM wasn't the only reason they played at that level)

I am going out on a limb and seeing Vegas as a team poised to take a step back with the addition of Mitch the Bitch, no Petro, no Hague or Roy. Their core is aging, they are smaller and wimpier and won't come out of the corners with pucks nearly as often

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 8:18 am Roslovic “apparent” contract demands - 3 year - $4 million per year. That’s a steep price on a centre version of Mason Raymond.

The longer he remains unsigned, the greater it may work in our favour. He might need to settle for a P.Suter/Lankinen type deal when we got first them. A short prove it deal, 1-2 yrs, under $2M.